anyways, i have bhagli to thank for providing the intellectual stimulation i needed to complete this paper one hour before it was due.
this was the aim conversation that turned into my paper: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=227691763&blogID=437803209
& here is the finished product:
The following dialogue is a discussion between myself and the protagonist, Bhagli Suren, over the topic of Nature Vs. Nurture. The following is my attempt to determine Bhagli’s stance on the matter, and conclude whether or not her views on this topic are based on fallacies or illogical contradictions. Through this dialectic, I will employ the Socratic Method to settle conclusively if Bhagli’s argument makes sense in a philosophical and logical perspective.
Melissa: Bhagli, I am wondering what your opinion is on the infamous nature versus nurture debate. Which of these do you think is the primary element that shapes an individual?
Bhagli: I say nurture shapes the individual more than nature because skills and attitudes can always be learned and honed. People aren't born with hate or love. We’re a neutral canvas at birth. It’s our experiences and relationships with others that help mold us into the people we will become as adults.
Melissa: interesting deduction, Bhagli. Would you go as far as to say that nature does not in fact have any impact on an individual's personality?
Bhagli: Yes, because how and where you grow up will determine whom you will become. For example, your environment, such as being poor in a third world country as opposed to well off in a first world country. Religion, racism, all these things are taught. A character trait, such as kindness, is taught.
Melissa: I understand that our environment does play a role in influencing our thoughts and actions; however, what would you say about people who do not conform to the ideals of their family and society? Are you in fact, saying that we are merely products of our environment?
Bhagli: Of course, because even anarchy requires an action against nurture. Nonconformity and denial of your societal and familial state require some sort of acknowledgment of your surroundings, so in turn, even if you go against the grain, you're still being affected by the ideas put forth.
Melissa: So where would you say this rebellious attitude could come from? If your family and society has taught you everything that you know about the world, from whence would the idea develop that would question these grand authorities? By simple reason, it must be something that is naturally developed in the mind of the individual, without influence from these outside sources. Are you in fact saying that individual thought and reason does not exist if even an act of rebellion would be considered as “conformist” under your logic?
Bhagli: I would say at this point in time, most rebellious and individual thoughts have been deduced to just a reconstruction/revision of history. So one is probably conforming to something that has already happened. Individual thought is possible, but every choice is a response to what is given to us by our environment. Therefore, individual thought, like this one that I am having, an opinion, is the birth of an idea from an pre-conceived notion that already exists.
Melissa: Well, your statements in themselves, reveal an interesting contradiction. At some point, an individual thought, exclusive to any outside influences, must have been formed, without this, mankind would have never been able to develop so many different value sets. So although I see your point on this matter, I still believe that our own genetics and natural, birth-given qualities also have an effect on us outside of our environmental influences.
Bhagli: I disagree, can you provide an example of where nature can surpass the effects forced onto the individual through familial and societal influences?
Melissa: Surely, I will. For instance, many modern scientists and genealogy experts would argue that homosexuality is a genetic trait. In the past and oftentimes it still occurs today, homosexuals have been considered banes of society and have been greatly discriminated against. Many people lose the support of their families, religious circles, and in extreme cases even face harassment and violence due to their sexuality. If you are arguing that nurture is the one and only determiner of an individual, why would anyone in their right mind, “choose” this kind of lifestyle and sexual preference?. Many homosexuals, despite their breeding, which may have pushed them towards a more socially accepted preference, would say that they were “born gay.” Would you deny these people’s deepest instincts and say that sexuality is nothing but a choice? Did you, “choose” to be straight, or is it something that was natural and instinctual for you?
Bhagli: Well, Melissa, even if you are born homosexual, it is nurture that will determine how and if you “come out” at all. However, that is one aspect of the discussion that I had not yet thought of. We really have no say in our sexuality... physical pleasure/needs are the most natural (even if taboo) part of being human, and of being in the most blatant of terms, an animal. We choose who we can love but as for the raw basics, for example, what gender our partner will be, is the most instinctual aspect of desire. So perhaps, you are right in the end, and both nature and nurture play a part in our personal development, even if it might not be an equal distribution.
Melissa: Thank you, Bhagli. All I ask is that from now on, you keep an open mind and realize that although we may be products of our environment, we also have an individual will and under the power of our own natural instincts we can fight the forces in our lives that try to hold us at bay from coming to our own conclusions.
professor pretty called my writing elegant... swoon*
No comments:
Post a Comment